Category archives: The Courts

Swearing Off Decency? Court Strikes Down FCC Policy On Profanity

by Tony Perkins

June 12, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

After a new ruling, it looks like broadcast television will be airing on the vulgar side. Just a year after the FCC cracked down on indecency, a three-judge panel decided the policy on fleeting expletives was too vague. According to the court, profanity thats live and unscripted shouldnt be bannedor even punished. Although the court said the FCCs rules are arbitrary, the reality is that the policy was finally helping to clean up network television by holding broadcasters responsible. Its ironic. Courts are defending the right to curse on primetime television but want to censor words like traditional values. Not too long ago, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled words like natural family should be banned in the workplace. The court sided with a supervisor who ordered employees to take down a flier that advertised a forum on faith and current issues. Why? Because it contained words like traditional marriage that the court considered hate speech. Americans had better start seriously questioning the direction of our country if the only controversial word that begins with f is family.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. For an e-mail subscription to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

Courting Victory

by Tony Perkins

April 23, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

After some very dark days for America, the people in this country who value life are celebrating the news that the Supreme Court finally upheld the partial-birth abortion ban by a vote of 5-4. It took 73 pages for the courts majority to come to the same conclusion that most Americans already hadthat U.S. law shouldnt support the senseless killing of innocent, partially-born babies. After years of debate in Congress and the courts, this decision to end the bloodshed of this horrific procedure is a welcome one for millions of Americans. The truth is, this issue shouldnt have been in the hands of the Court in the first placebecause its not in the Constitution that was written by our Founding Fathers. At least with this decision, the justices are finally beginning to grant the peoplethrough their elected representativesa say in important public policy matters. This rare gleam of sanity in the abortion debate is a long-awaited triumph for FRC, marked by years of hard work on Capitol Hill. We can hope and pray that this Supreme Court majority will continue to recognize the interest of the people in protecting mothers and their children in the womb.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. To subscribe to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.

FRC Responds to Supreme Court Decision

by Jared Bridges

April 18, 2007

Here’s FRC’s press release:

FRC Praises Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

April 18, 2007

Washington D.C.- Today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement welcoming the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-birth Abortion Ban.

This is a victory for a commonsense measure that is overwhelmingly favored by over 70 percent of the American people who increasingly support protections for unborn children. This brings the nation’s abortion policy one step closer to the views of the American people. Americans are against unlimited abortion and the partial-abortion ban is the first meaningful limitation on abortion in over thirty years.

We applaud the Court for recognizing the legitimate interest that Congress has ‘in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.’ The Court rejected the idea that a group of partial-birth abortion doctors should hold veto power over the abortion policy of the entire country. The Majority is to be commended for respecting the intent of Congress who represent the American people. This is a violent and inhumane act that is never medically necessary according to the American Medical Association.

I want to thank President Bush, Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), and former Senator Rick Santorum for all their hard work over the years to pass this legislation.”

Case Closed on Parents’ Rights

by Tony Perkins

March 28, 2007

On March 26, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Fausey v. Hiller, in which FRC submitted an amicus curiae brief through our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund. We hoped that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity to clarify the law on the question of third-party visitation rights.

FRC contended that fit parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children without state interference. For the state to force parents to accept visitation from other parties, who are not the legal parents of the child, is an unacceptable infringement. Currently this can occur when a court deems it to be “in the best interests of the child to have third-party visits.” Such decisions risk reinforcing a growing government trend to “micromanage” the American family.

If our courts go too far and start overruling parents on these issues, then the results will not only promote worthy goals—like encouraging grandparents’ access to their grandchildren—but also access by unrelated adults, whose presence the judges think would be good for children. It’s not hard to see what harm judges could do with such an elastic standard.